EducationC4

The accounting faculty made major changes to the accounting curriculum based partly on their review of the CPA exam results. The faculty decided to focus the MPA Program on preparing students for public accounting careers and the success on the entry level professional examination which is the CPA exam. The admission GPA was increased from 2.25 to 2.50 to improve the success of students admitted to the program. It also made the accounting GPA consistent with the business administration major and stopped business administration majors from declaring as an accounting major because of lower requirements.

In some undegraduate programs the faculty receive direct feedback in the form of evaluative comments from internship suppervisors (Graphic Design)and evaluation of student teaching (Art Education). They use this information to make the necessary adjustments to their courses. Historically, the studio art faculty have not met a s group to review the assessment results collected for their students. Instead, they have have made adjustments based on the quality of student performance in their respective courses.

They are reviewed by the Department Chair and are forwarded to the Director of Flight Training at our contract flight training provider who in turn reviews them with the individual flight instructors. Faculty reviews include peer observations which include feedback. Faculty meetings are scheduled on a weekly basis throughout each quarter and provide an opportunity for faculty members to exchange information regarding course improvements. FAA approval is contingent on maintaining minimum course standards and passing scheduled and non-scheduled base inspections. Any deficiencies are addressed and corrected within a prescribed timeframe.

The Undergraduate Committee reports assessment results and analysis to the department faculty and staff at a regularly scheduled meeting. After review and discussion of the data the committee asks for faculty input or thoughts. The committee will use the faculty/staff input to suggest potential curricular changes in response to the data. A similar process is used by the Graduate Committee in reviewing and responding to assessment results of the graduate program. The Science Education Program faculty work with their colleagues to assess the Chemistry Teaching major. Student performance is compared across disciplines. Data is analyzed by the Science Education faculty and reported to the department undergraduate curriculum committee.

Informally or formally, assessment is a continuous process for our faculty. The Department faculty have jointly developed the assessment requirements used at present for both entry and exit from the majors in accordance with the various majors’ learning outcomes. Faculty regularly rotate the portfolio assessment course amongst them so that they all have firsthand knowledge of what the student portfolios show. Likewise, faculty members attend student portfolio presentation, and many of these same students give portfolio presentations to incoming majors in Com 289, Communication Orientation.

January, 2008 As a small department, all assessment and accreditation activities are created and/or reviewed by a committee of the whole. Specifically, these results are reviewed at faculty meetings and curriculum committee meetingss as they become available. They also become input for the end-of-the-year review.

Department program committees have access to and in some cases conduct the program assessment measures referenced by the department. Recommendations for change come from those committees, and minutes for committee meetings track changes. Recent examples of changes based on program exit data include the following: · Students reported in the Program Outcomes Surveys and in the Colloquium Interview Evaluations that they lacked confidence in their grammar knowledge; as a result, ENG 320: English Grammar, and ENG 304: English Linguistics were changed from options to core program requirements for both undergraduate major programs. · Students reported in the Senior Colloquium Interviews a desire for an English major option that shifts the reading/writing balance from literature to composing; the result of our discussions in response to student needs is the proposed Writing Specialization (Appendix E). · In a 2004 survey, graduate students reported dissatisfaction with the ‘backloading” of program requirements which delayed degree completion, as well as a disconnect between course coverage and comprehensive exam reading lists; the graduate committee recommended changes to program requirements that were recently approved by the department.

The faculty and department chair review assessment results to revise courses, reappoint faculty assignments and recognize faculty productivity. Each FCS program area completed a program assessment report and produced written strategies for addressing program weaknesses in 08-09. The department chair reviewed program assessment results and is supporting program revision actions. Some courses are being revised and some programs are developing new courses. The department has also used the various program review results to create a new department core and reduce course duplication.

Feedback from students is highly valued by our faculty.  Students evaluate all courses taught in the department using the standard SEOI forms, and supplemental written comments are especially encouraged when these forms are handed out at the end of every quarter in all of our classes.  The results, in terms of both individual student comments and the numerical rankings of standardized questions, are reviewed for both instructional and program concerns.  

In the context of student performance at the program level, the GEOG 489–Geography Capstone course has been the primary tool for an overall, end-of-studies assessment of our geography majors.  This course is under the supervision and facilitation of the department Chair, and is a required course for all graduating seniors.  The results of student interviews and other feedback from this course are used as a basis for considering program directional adjustments, as well as formal curricular or other instructional shifts, including responding to any identified need for more offerings of one course or fewer offerings of another.  Occasionally, other faculty from the department have attended various capstone presentations and all have had the opportunity to see the completed projects of the majors.  Faculty conversations that have stemmed from the results of this course, along with our collective experience in other courses and when advising students, have led to the following curricular changes during the past four years:

a.  all majors must now earn C or better in each of the courses listed in their major contract (this represents a recent program revision in the university catalog, in that the department agreed that this minimum standard should be raised from its previous level of a grade of C minus);

b.  internal formalization of advising specializations within the 60-credit option for the geography major;

c.  development of a Quantitative Methods class (GEOG 409).

UPDATED JULY 2008 The department chair is currently responsible for compiling assessment results and providing faculty with updates. All faculty then engage in analysis of this information, and through iterative discussions, relevant changes are implemented. In some cases, the department seeks the advice and input of the college dean. In cases where changes require reallocation of resources (e.g., teaching reassignment to support service or scholarship activities), the department chair and dean engage in critical discussions.

All members of the faculty distribute student evaluation (or SEOI) forms to their students at the end of every course. These are reviewed by the chairman quarterly and by the dean annually. Faculty-chair discussions are held if results warrant consultation. Dr. Thomas Wellock has spearheaded a campus plan to revise these forms to provide more focused feedback to instructors and their supervisors, but movement has been glacial. In Fall of 2007, the faculty devised a new rubric for grading His 481 research papers, with seven categories. We will now begin to collect data for areas in which students supercede, meet and disappoint the faculty's expectations.

Faculty regularly review the programs and curriculum using a variety of resources including professional organizations’ model curriculums, literature reviews, discussions with employers, advisory groups, participation in professional organizations, and keeping current with the field. The field of information technology is ever changing and faculty members are constantly assessing their own knowledge and skills. As a result, faculty members incorporate various avenues for retraining. To keep current with technology, resources are updated as often as can be with limited dollars.

The faculty members of the LAJ Department have numerous opportunities to review and respond to assessment results. Every spring the LAJ Assessment Committee shares a draft of the report with faculty members and elicits feedback for the final report. In the fall the LAJ faculty meets to discuss the report and develop policies, curricular changes, ideas for better pedagogical practice, and improved assessment techniques that will help the LAJ Department meet the needs of its students, faculty, alumni and numerous community stakeholders, as well the mission of Central Washington University. Each year the CWU Academic Assessment Committee issues a feedback report responding to the LAJ Department’s Assessment Report. This report highlights strengths, points out weaknesses and suggests strategies for improving the assessment process.

Annual assessment reports are being systematically implemented for the first time in Spring 2008. The Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Affairs has promised feedback on these reports. The departmental self-study is read by both the Dean and the Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Affairs and letters are written that highlight some of the more important recommendations.

Assessment of Students and Department Programs
i. Student assessment at entrance.
1. Each program assesses students for entry into the program uniquely.

a. The Exercise Science Generalist Program requires students to successfully complete (C or better) EMS 245, EXSC 250, and EXSC 254 (Foundations of Fitness) prior to admission. The Clinical Physiology Program requires a C+ or better in the following pre-admission courses: CHEM 111 + Lab; MATH 130, NUTR 245, BIOL 201, EMS 245, and EXSC 250. Regardless of program, all prospective students are required to meet with the Director of the EXSC program to review completion of pre-admission requirements and to discuss career aspirations. At this time, a two (2) year academic schedule is established for the student to follow.

b. The Food Science and Nutrition programs require that students successfully complete NUTR 140, 140L, 245, and CHEM 111 & 111L before they are admitted to the major.

In addition to general university requirements for admission, full admission to the graduate program requires an undergraduate degree with a major in a physical education, health, recreation, or a closely related to the student’s desired area of emphasis. Conditional or probationary admission may be granted to applicants not meeting all admissions criteria

c. The Paramedic program requires students to be 18 years of age, and have 1-year minimum (2 year preferred) EMS experience as an EMT-Basic. Additionally, all applicants must:

i. Complete a 20-minute oral interview with a panel composed of faculty, medical director, program graduates, advisory board member(s), and current students.

ii. Provides notarized letter(s) documenting their EMT-B experience from an EMS agencies.

iii. Be evaluated on knowledge and practical application of basic EMT skills.

iv. Complete the Health Occupation Basic Entrance Test Written Examination.

v. No Felony convictions.

vi. Be selected by the interviewing panel based on their performance and experience.

d. Health Programs: Public Health requires students to meet with a Public Health advisor prior to establishing their majors. Students are required to complete the admissions packet, including professional goals and timeline for graduation.
i. Health Programs: School Health Education requires students to complete a letter of intent detailing 1) reasons for choosing School Health Education (Health/Fitness Endorsement), 2) specific experiences or qualifications; complete the application form; have a minimum 3.0 GPA over the last 45 credits in order to student teach.

e. Physical Education and Health Education require graduating students to complete an electronic portfolio which includes a variety of artifacts that display the students achievements during the program. Students must also complete all major requirements with a C or higher

ii. Student assessment upon graduation
1. Each program assesses students upon completion uniquely.
a. Exercise Science students must complete all courses in the program with at least a “C” grade before being eligible for entrance to the internship. Any classes not receiving the appropriate grade must be repeated with a maximum of three attempts permissible for any single class. A satisfactory grade must be achieved from the internship for graduation.

b. Graduate students must complete on of three options: 1) Thesis, 2) Project, or 3) Examination; and an oral examination covering their thesis, project, and coursework.

c. Food Science and Nutrition students must successfully complete the food research component of NUTR 440 – Experimental Foods. This course, which has been identified as the capstone course of the program, requires students to utilize knowledge and skills from a wide variety of courses required in their major in order to complete the food research project. The project culminates with a research manuscript appropriate for publication in the Journal of American Dietetic Association and a poster presentation of a quality suitable for presentation at a professional meeting.

d. Paramedic students must receive a passing grade on all courses within the major/program. Students must demonstrate the cognitive information by passing a comprehensive exam at 74% or better. On all team leader calls, students must be evaluated as competent by the field preceptors. By the completion of 160 ambulance calls, students must be consistently evaluated as competent on the calls. All required clinical training hours and procedures have been satisfactorily completed. Each student must document on experience forms all clinical training

e. Public Health students must successfully complete a 400-hour cooperative education culminating experience, as well as develop an electronic portfolio of works completed.

f. Physical Education and Health Program require graduating students to complete a portfolio. Students must also complete all major courses with a C or higher.

iii. The alumni office gathers data from students regarding their post baccalaureate experiences or employment history and contact information. The paramedic program utilizes a common website and email provider to maintain contact with graduates. Graduates employed in the education are often followed through informal contacts.

iv. All program faculty are involved in both program and student assessments. Program faculty evaluate applications for admission into the major. Faculty review portfolios for content and quality of submission. As external and internal reviewers review programs, faculty have opportunity to express their views regarding the need for modifications, revisions, or program additions/eliminations.

v. Programs are assessed externally by governing agencies such as NCATE, NASPE, the National Recreation and Parks Association/American Alliance for Leisure and Recreation, National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) and CAAHEP. Programs are also assessed by various state agencies. Faculty regularly assess their curriculum juxtaposing organizational standards to program curriculum (See NCATE Report, CAAHEP Report, memorandum of state approval of endorsements). As deficiencies are detected in program curricula, faculty determine remedial activities or content to be incorporate into existing courses or the need for courses to be added or deleted from the program. Extensive revision or for course deletions/additions, the appropriate university forms are completed and processed through the department chair, dean, center for teaching and learning (teacher education courses only), the faculty senate curriculum committee, and the vice president of academic affairs (Provost). If additional resources are required, application or memoranda are submitted to the department chair, the Dean, the Provost, and the President of the university.

Describe the manner in which faculty and relevant administrators review and respond to assessment results:

Deans will summarize for their colleges. Departments add specific evidence

All program faculty are involved in both program and student assessments. Program faculty evaluate applications for admission into the major. Faculty review portfolios for content and quality of submission. As external and internal reviewers review programs, faculty have an opportunity to express their views regarding the need for modifications, revisions, or program additions/eliminations.

Department chair meets with NTT faculty annually and meets with faculty who are under review to discuss performance, in addition to periodical discussion with faculty when issues arise. Department personnel committee routinely evaluate faculty performance as required by the code and, recently, the CBA.

Two problems with the Physics Department’s current assessment methods are the analysis of the data (student portfolios) and dissemination of the results. The Department has recognized this deficiency and has recommended creating an Assessment Committee to address the first issue. Dissemination will occur at the Department’s annual Assessment retreat.

(January 2008) • Department committees study assessment results and recommend department or program action as appropriate. • Department conducts an Assessment Day at the end of spring quarter each year. At this time, the year’s data for each of our department goal indicators are presented and discussed. Potential alterations of curriculum or policies are considered. • Individual faculty members may modify their teaching, scholarship, or service skills in consultation with colleagues as appropriate. • Department recommendations are reported to the dean as they emerge. A summary of evaluations and responses is submitted every five years in the course of normal program review.

The only difficulty the department is experiencing in the assessment program is student cooperation in taking the exit exam. (The entrance exam has become standard procedure for all new students.) But in the past, many students simply did not take the exit exam. This problem has been addressed and solved by making the exam part of the course in senior research. A student is not given a grade in this required course until the exit exam has been completed. Overall, the department is quite pleased with current assessment results. On a scale of 100, student knowledge and skills in the profession improve by an average of fourteen percent from entrance to exit.

QUESTION: EducationC4